On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Marcos Douglas said:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Michael Van Canneyt
<[email protected]> wrote:
I don't think namespaces are the holy grail.
Assume we introduce namespaces, do things 'Properly' and introduce
Core.FileUtils
Core.StringUtils
(the names are just examples, to make a point)
Now let's take example existing routines such as
ExtractFilePath
ExtractFileName
Where do we put them ?
Using your examples names -- I say that because I disagree they are good names:
Core.File.Utils
- ExtractFilePath
- ExtractFileName
These functions 'belong' to the file context, not strings.
Well, they are FPC only, and only work for OSes with a filesystems, so
fpc.core.filesystem.file.utils is better I think.
At the very least FPC specific functionality should not rest in a very
common worth as "core" as root prefix. That defeats the prime reason for
namespace, avoiding clashes.
Exactly what I said in my first reply: 'core' is a poor choice for a first
term.
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - [email protected]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
